I don't get the hype about weeks at no.1/YE No. 1

[booson]

Year End No.1 and 4 slams in a row are, probabilisticly speaking, much harder to attain than CYGS and an equivalent amount of Weeks at no. 1. It's pretty obvious, don't know why people don't see it. It's like saying that the probability of 4 succesive heads in a sequence of coin tosses is 'nearly equal' to the probability of getting 4 heads. It's not even close.
Every single macro result in tennis (summarizing: gained points in a tournament) contains a lot of variables, many of them are affected by randomness or very complex factors (weather, draws, health, etc.).

People simplifies things too much around here.

 

[Federer302]

OP the most important things in tennis are

1)Wimbledon
2)Other Grand Slams
3) #1 Ranking
4) WTF

Not a surprise that Nadal and Serena fans continue to belittle the important of the ranking which experts place heavily in goat determination.


Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Rafael Nadal 141
7. Novak Djokovic 119
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80

Nadal fans will be hoping for a miracle next week, that Fed gets YE#1. Not only will Nole equal Nadal's 3 YE#1 but ensure that he is on the brink of overtaking Nadal's 141 weeks.

 

[jhhachamp]

What's so special about YE #1 and weeks at no. 1?.

I just don't get the hype.

For sure, there's the "being best of the entire sports" for so many week achievement, that's true. But seriously, how is being #1 really that big of an achievement when the #2 guy might in reality be just a few points off from the #1.

Hypothetical scenario here for 200 weeks of play in the ATP calendar:

A guy, suppose Mr. X is #1 in the ATP rankings for 100 weeks while another guy, Mr. Y, is #2 for all these same weeks, always very close to the Mr. X but not quite good enough to make it to #1.

Now after these 100 weeks are over, another new player Mr. Z comes in and starts dominating the sport, at the same time Mr. X declines BIG TIME and never stays in the top 5 again. Yet. Mr. Y who is only mid-way through his prime doesn't decline a lot, and still gives tough competition Mr. Z but is once again, like he was previously with Mr. X never quite good enough to displace Mr. Z (maybe a few weeks here and there, but overall among the 100 weeks that follow, he only leads for 20 weeks and the rest of the weeks he's at number 2.).

So here we have a scenario where among the same 200 weeks played:

Amount of times spent as #1
Mr. X : 100 weeks.
Mr. Y: 30 weeks.
Mr. Z: 70 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #2
Mr. X: 5 weeks.
Mr. Y: 170 weeks.
Mr. Z: 30 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #3
Mr. X: 15 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 5 weeks.

Amount of spent as #4 or lower
Mr. X: 80 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 95 weeks.



So basically you have a scenario in which three guys were at the pinaccle of the sport for 200 weeks but among these Mr. Y racked up the most slams (he racked up slams during both the era of Mr. X and Mr. Z), was in the top 2 for all of these 200 weeks, when Mr.X/Mr.Z performed much worse except for the periods during which they #1. Yet Mr. Y has significantly lower #1's than Mr. X and Mr. Z.


Now, let's assume that this 200 weeks constituted their entire tennis career. Basically it might be achievements for Mr. X and Mr. Z to have more time as #1 than Mr. Y. But care to explain to me how they are better than Mr. Y based on this factor (weeks at #1) alone, when it is clear that it is Mr. Y who performed the best among them (without falling apart) during this entire stretch of 200 weeks.

Weeks at #1 is important, but it is not the only thing that matters. Most people value the number of grand slams won higher than the number of weeks at #1. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you talk about people who say that weeks at #1 is the only thing that matters, because I never saw anyone say that...

 

[TMF]

Nadal fans will be hoping for a miracle next week, that Fed gets YE#1. Not only will Nole equal Nadal's 3 YE#1 but ensure that he is on the brink of overtaking Nadal's 141 weeks.

Nadal fans will root for Federer, but Sampras fans will root for Nole.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Any level headed tennis fans will tell you the same.

That is ad hominem.

 

[moonballs]

In your hypothetical scenario does Mr Y hold the record of most weeks in top 2 of ATP? As long as it is a record it is worth something. Only thing I would require is to measure each player over their entire career.

 

[tacou]

#1 means you are #1 as far as the ranking system is concerned, so that is clearly an achievement.

YE#1, on the other hand, less so, considering tennis lasts about 10 months out of the year. Some guys take mid-season breaks that are longer than the "off season."

 

[Dave1982]

I tend to agree, personally as a tennis fan I've never really considered the number 1 ranking, weeks at number 1 or even YE#1 a major achievement or a stat to be pulled out in the "who's better" debates. From my perspective achieving such a feat is largely a by product of (more than likely) winning significant tournaments & consistently playing at a high level, both of which I believe are of far greater importance & players would prefer to do if given the choice against always being runner up yet still retaining the number 1 ranking.
The ATP has undeniably in recent years placed greater emphasis on the YE#1 race for what would only appear to be commercial purposes. At the end of the day the only true benefits derived from rankings (that are relevant to fans - i know many players have bonuses in their sponsorship deals attached to them) are entry to tournaments & subsequent seedlings at tournaments...with that being the case there's really no benefit of being #1 over #2 & similarly #3 over #4.

 

[pennc94]

YE #1 and Weeks #1 are related of course.
There are weeks at #1 that YE #1 gets in the off-season that really shouldn't count. How many of Federer's weeks at #1 were gained in off-season? Nadal? Sampras? Greater share might indicate non-dominance throughout the season.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Tennis is about greatness, and greatness = grand slam titles.

Its like being 1 at ranking fifa, the important thing is to win the world cup.

 

[Dave1982]

YE #1 and Weeks #1 are related of course.
There are weeks at #1 that YE #1 gets in the off-season that really shouldn't count. How many of Federer's weeks at #1 were gained in off-season? Nadal? Sampras? Greater share might indicate non-dominance throughout the season.

Totally agree and I guess you could argue that those weeks are kind of like a "bonus" for achieving YE#1....again why I really don't place any great emphasis on such stats.

Tennis is about greatness, and greatness = grand slam titles.

Its like being 1 at ranking fifa, the important thing is to win the world cup.

Exactly, other than guaranteeing your entry and positioning within a tournaments draw it really doesn't do much else....certainly doesn't guarantee you a trophy (other than the Year End trophy which again backs up my point about the whole commercialization of it) or even a spot in the final.

 

[itoaxel]

I agree somewhat on weeks at #1, but YE#1's are the best way to give players before the official computer rankings fair due. So I do think YE#1s are very important for that reason. It is ignorant how some modern day tennis fans just post weeks at #1, which only serves as some basis of comparision for players from 1975 to today (and not even entirely as the ranking system until 1985 atleast was ********), and basically acts as if people like Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden, Budge, Emerson, Newcombe, Tilden, Budge, Perry, Kramer, and so many other greats never spent a week at #1. Which needless to say is ridiculous and serves no purpose for a true "all time" discussion (and is mostly used by Federer fans who want to dismiss past greats who in reality were at #1 more time than Federer even if not reflected by a computer), but years at #1 can serve that purpose better.

 

[TMF]

Tennis is about greatness, and greatness = grand slam titles.

Its like being 1 at ranking fifa, the important thing is to win the world cup.

But that doesn't mean being the best player in the world doesn't matter. I mean Messi and Ronaldo haven't won the world cup, but they are considered the best players today. Isn't that greatness?

 

[PMChambers]

It ATP YE1 is a system designed to keep interest. It has been very flaw over the "pro" era to the point where the ITF No.1 probably reflects the closer to the actual No.1.

In my memeory the ATP No.1 was never considered very important as it gave great importance and consideration to ATP event rather than the ITF GS events. The ATP YE1 represents the more consistent player in GS & M1000 events, the ITF No.1 represents the player whoachieved the greatest and significant record that year.

The ATP ranking was meant to be a system to rank players for tournament ranks but the ITF events (Grand Slams) historically ignored it and Wimbledon still does and ranks players on it's own system. As a seeding system it works well as it promotes consistency over potential win.

To use the ATP ranking as a method to rank players from different eras is completely pointless and even to represent the defining moments of the sport (GS) is pointless.

It is a honour and does represent a high level of play over a calendar year, but does not reflect the best player of the year in my and many professionals (ITF Judges including, Hoad, Budge, McEnroe, Lendle, etc). The ATP are tiring to make excitement and entertainment and if you feel the points race excites you then they are performing their role as an entertainer. Having said that in recent time the ATP ranking and ITF have been close thanks to winners of multiple GS.

End of the day any system is purely personal preference, the ATP rankings must also be weighted for all levels and increasing GS points will effect 50's ranked player as the draw will effect them considerably.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Waking up in the morning and knowing you are the best in the world in your chosen discipline/profession bar none is a very very big thing. Who doesn't dream of being the best in the world?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

But that doesn't mean being the best player in the world doesn't matter. I mean Messi and Ronaldo haven't won the world cup, but they are considered the best players today. Isn't that greatness?

Here is a question for TMF.

How many different players have won Grand Slams since the rankings began, and how many different number ones have their been in that time?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I suspekt the answer could reveal that it is harder to become nr 1 than to win a major, but I am not sure.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Just "WoW" to the guys saying that winning a tournament or two is more prestegious than being the "BEST IN THE ****ING WORLD".

About the comparison with football, if Real Madrid wins every clasico but lose the title every time to Barcelona, whoes better?

Being number 1 is just a phenomenal achievment, no one can take that from you.

 

[Flint]

I totally understand why being number 1 is a great achievement. You have been the best player in the world over the last 52 weeks. And the longer you spend as number 1 the greater you are.

What I don't understand is the fuss about year end number 1. Why would being number 1 at the end of the year be more important than being number 1 in the middle of the year?

 

[itoaxel]

What I don't understand is the fuss about year end number 1. Why would being number 1 at the end of the year be more important than being number 1 in the middle of the year?

Well handling the pressure in that situation for one thing. Also that many players build their years just to be YE#1. Sampras was that for instance.

Most importantly of all though as I said YE#1 is the only way to accurately compare ALL players in history, not just those since 1975. You cant credit Gonzales, Laver, Tilden, Court, Lenglen, Wills, with weeks at #1 as they didn't exist. So do we just pretend those players were never #1 when comparing to modern day players. Of course not (although many here would love to do this).

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I agree somewhat on weeks at #1, but YE#1's are the best way to give players before the official computer rankings fair due. So I do think YE#1s are very important for that reason. It is ignorant how some modern day tennis fans just post weeks at #1, which only serves as some basis of comparision for players from 1975 to today (and not even entirely as the ranking system until 1985 atleast was ********), and basically acts as if people like Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden, Budge, Emerson, Newcombe, Tilden, Budge, Perry, Kramer, and so many other greats never spent a week at #1. Which needless to say is ridiculous and serves no purpose for a true "all time" discussion (and is mostly used by Federer fans who want to dismiss past greats who in reality were at #1 more time than Federer even if not reflected by a computer), but years at #1 can serve that purpose better.

Emerson never spent a week as the best player of the world ;-).

Obviously Gonzalez and Tilden were number for a longer period than Federer.

By the way, slams don't do a good job at all at paying tribute to the old great either.

 

[itoaxel]

Emerson never spent a week as the best player of the world ;-).

Obviously Gonzalez and Tilden were number for a longer period than Federer.

By the way, slams don't do a good job at all at paying tribute to the old great either.

Slams on the womens side are accurate, but the mens not accurate at all. Sadly in the mens game it is made too easy to diminish past greats. In the womens game if anything it is too easy to overrate the old greats (with their slam totals accurate, unlike the men, and their heavily inflated tournament title stats which would be impossible for any of them today).

Yeah you are right on Emerson though. He wasn't for a single week best in the world probably. Had there been computer rankings though he would have spent a ton of time as the amateur #1, thus #1 ranked by the official computer (although not by anyone else).

 

[helloworld]

Another ad-hominem, but you're kind of correct in this case.
There are slams and then there are the rest. 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th does not matter.
Any level headed tennis fans will tell you the same.

You are disrespecting the entire ATP tour. Slams are the most important tournaments in tennis, but other tournaments do matter as well. The fact that you failed to acknowledge the Year-End Championship as the 5th most prestigious tournament in the world clearly indicates that you are a biased fanboy because your favorite player didn't win that particular tournament.

 

[TMF]

Here is a question for TMF.

How many different players have won Grand Slams since the rankings began, and how many different number ones have their been in that time?

Since 1973, 16 different players have ended the year #1

Since 1973, 44 different players have won a slam.

 

[timnz]

15 or 16 YE #1's

Since 1973, 16 different players have ended the year #1

Since 1973, 44 different players have won a slam.

I get 15 YE #1's - did I miss someone? (Asking for forgiveness in advance if you think I am being too pedantic - your point TMF is made by your previous post).

Nastase
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Edberg
Courier
Sampras
Kuerten
Hewitt
Roddick
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic

 

[The Green Mile]

^^ Agassi 1999.

 

[TMF]

I get 15 YE #1's - did I miss someone? (Asking for forgiveness in advance if you think I am being too pedantic - your point TMF is made by your previous post).

Nastase
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Edberg
Courier
Sampras
Kuerten
Hewitt
Roddick
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic

Agassi makes a total of 16.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=8605837#post8605837
Past Year End #1:
1973 Romania Ilie Năstase (1)
1974 United States Jimmy Connors (1)
1975 United States Jimmy Connors (2)
1976 United States Jimmy Connors (3)
1977 United States Jimmy Connors (4)
1978 United States Jimmy Connors (5)
1979 Sweden Björn Borg (1)
1980 Sweden Björn Borg (2)
1981 United States John McEnroe (1)
1982 United States John McEnroe (2)
1983 United States John McEnroe (3)
1984 United States John McEnroe (4)
1985 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (1)
1986 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (2)
1987 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (3)
1988 Sweden Mats Wilander (1)
1989 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (4)
1990 Sweden Stefan Edberg (1)
1991 Sweden Stefan Edberg (2)
1992 United States Jim Courier (1)
1993 United States Pete Sampras (1)
1994 United States Pete Sampras (2)
1995 United States Pete Sampras (3)
1996 United States Pete Sampras (4)
1997 United States Pete Sampras (5)
1998 United States Pete Sampras (6)
1999 United States Andre Agassi (1)
2000 Brazil Gustavo Kuerten (1)
2001 Australia Lleyton Hewitt (1)
2002 Australia Lleyton Hewitt (2)
2003 United States Andy Roddick (1)
2004 Switzerland Roger Federer (1)
2005 Switzerland Roger Federer (2)
2006 Switzerland Roger Federer (3)
2007 Switzerland Roger Federer (4)
2008 Spain Rafael Nadal (1)
2009 Switzerland Roger Federer (5)
2010 Spain Rafael Nadal (2)
2011 Serbia Novak Djokovic (1)
2012 Serbia Novak Djokovic (2)
2013 Spain Rafael Nadal (3)

 

[90's Clay]

Pretty amazing for Pete to get 6 straight YE#1s. That takes tremendous focus and consistency to stay there.

I believe Unofficially Pancho has the record with 8?

 

[burn1986]

It's all stupid. Heck, most of could care less for London, and even less about the #1 bullcr-p. It's just the off season and the tennis press is trying to make something outta nothin.

 

[90's Clay]

It's all stupid. Heck, most of could care less for London, and even less about the #1 bullcr-p. It's just the off season and the tennis press is trying to make something outta nothin.

Thats true in many ways. At least now it is. These days it feels as though the Season ends after the USO and starts back up in January.

The year end stuff is just extra gravy for most of the guys

 

[RoddickAce]

In your scenarios it would show that Mr. Y has longevity but at his best he couldnt top his main rivals.

 

[Devil's_Advocate]

I think you're missing the point. Most people agree that Slam-count is the most important metric, at least as far as modern-day Tennis is concerned. Ranking comes later, but then, so does everything else. Most people seem to think ranking is the second biggest metric. But that's all they claim.

 

[chjtennis]

It takes greatness to be no.1. What more needs to be said?

 

[timnz]

Opps sorry Andre

Agassi makes a total of 16.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=8605837#post8605837
Past Year End #1:
1973 Romania Ilie Năstase (1)
1974 United States Jimmy Connors (1)
1975 United States Jimmy Connors (2)
1976 United States Jimmy Connors (3)
1977 United States Jimmy Connors (4)
1978 United States Jimmy Connors (5)
1979 Sweden Björn Borg (1)
1980 Sweden Björn Borg (2)
1981 United States John McEnroe (1)
1982 United States John McEnroe (2)
1983 United States John McEnroe (3)
1984 United States John McEnroe (4)
1985 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (1)
1986 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (2)
1987 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (3)
1988 Sweden Mats Wilander (1)
1989 Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl (4)
1990 Sweden Stefan Edberg (1)
1991 Sweden Stefan Edberg (2)
1992 United States Jim Courier (1)
1993 United States Pete Sampras (1)
1994 United States Pete Sampras (2)
1995 United States Pete Sampras (3)
1996 United States Pete Sampras (4)
1997 United States Pete Sampras (5)
1998 United States Pete Sampras (6)
1999 United States Andre Agassi (1)
2000 Brazil Gustavo Kuerten (1)
2001 Australia Lleyton Hewitt (1)
2002 Australia Lleyton Hewitt (2)
2003 United States Andy Roddick (1)
2004 Switzerland Roger Federer (1)
2005 Switzerland Roger Federer (2)
2006 Switzerland Roger Federer (3)
2007 Switzerland Roger Federer (4)
2008 Spain Rafael Nadal (1)
2009 Switzerland Roger Federer (5)
2010 Spain Rafael Nadal (2)
2011 Serbia Novak Djokovic (1)
2012 Serbia Novak Djokovic (2)
2013 Spain Rafael Nadal (3)

Oops sorry Andre (and sorry TMF)!

 

[TheTruth]

What's so special about YE #1 and weeks at no. 1?.

I just don't get the hype.

For sure, there's the "being best of the entire sports" for so many week achievement, that's true. But seriously, how is being #1 really that big of an achievement when the #2 guy might in reality be just a few points off from the #1.

Hypothetical scenario here for 200 weeks of play in the ATP calendar:

A guy, suppose Mr. X is #1 in the ATP rankings for 100 weeks while another guy, Mr. Y, is #2 for all these same weeks, always very close to the Mr. X but not quite good enough to make it to #1.

Now after these 100 weeks are over, another new player Mr. Z comes in and starts dominating the sport, at the same time Mr. X declines BIG TIME and never stays in the top 5 again. Yet. Mr. Y who is only mid-way through his prime doesn't decline a lot, and still gives tough competition Mr. Z but is once again, like he was previously with Mr. X never quite good enough to displace Mr. Z (maybe a few weeks here and there, but overall among the 100 weeks that follow, he only leads for 20 weeks and the rest of the weeks he's at number 2.).

So here we have a scenario where among the same 200 weeks played:

Amount of times spent as #1
Mr. X : 100 weeks.
Mr. Y: 30 weeks.
Mr. Z: 70 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #2
Mr. X: 5 weeks.
Mr. Y: 170 weeks.
Mr. Z: 30 weeks.

Amount of time spent as #3
Mr. X: 15 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 5 weeks.

Amount of spent as #4 or lower
Mr. X: 80 weeks.
Mr. Y: N/A
Mr. Z: 95 weeks.



So basically you have a scenario in which three guys were at the pinaccle of the sport for 200 weeks but among these Mr. Y racked up the most slams (he racked up slams during both the era of Mr. X and Mr. Z), was in the top 2 for all of these 200 weeks, when Mr.X/Mr.Z performed much worse except for the periods during which they #1. Yet Mr. Y has significantly lower #1's than Mr. X and Mr. Z.


Now, let's assume that this 200 weeks constituted their entire tennis career. Basically it might be achievements for Mr. X and Mr. Z to have more time as #1 than Mr. Y. But care to explain to me how they are better than Mr. Y based on this factor (weeks at #1) alone, when it is clear that it is Mr. Y who performed the best among them (without falling apart) during this entire stretch of 200 weeks.

I think it's just another metric to try to measure greatness, but I'm not sure if it's an accurate metric, because so much of such statistics also depend upon what others do. It's tricky, because in the case of the women's tour, Wozniacki has 67 weeks at #1, which is 56 weeks more than Venus Williams. In this case the metric fails.

But, having weeks at number one is a good thing it fails in many instances at defining greatness. Like anything else, there are exceptions. I think people just like to come up with different statistics to measure real life occurrences; it's sort of like how they try to measure intelligence.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Pretty amazing for Pete to get 6 straight YE#1s. That takes tremendous focus and consistency to stay there.

I believe Unofficially Pancho has the record with 8?

7-9 years as No.1 for Pancho Gonzales

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Since 1973, 16 different players have ended the year #1

Since 1973, 44 different players have won a slam.

Thanks for confirming what I thought was true. It is much harder to get that number one year ending ranking than it is to win a slam. It is an indication of greatness, since so few have stood at the absolute pinnacle of this sport. It shows you are the best in the world at what you do.

Pretty amazing for Pete to get 6 straight YE#1s. That takes tremendous focus and consistency to stay there.

I believe Unofficially Pancho has the record with 8?

Yes, Pete deserves full credit for making the record. And I think that record will stand for a very long time. And you are correct about Pancho also, one of the reasons some consider him to be the greatest.

 

[Russeljones]

Thanks for confirming what I thought was true. It is much harder to get that number one year ending ranking than it is to win a slam. It is an indication of greatness, since so few have stood at the absolute pinnacle of this sport. It shows you are the best in the world at what you do.



Yes, Pete deserves full credit for making the record. And I think that record will stand for a very long time. And you are correct about Pancho also, one of the reasons some consider him to be the greatest.

This post echoes my exact sentiments. The people looking to detract from the standing of a certain achievement are almost invariably the people more focused on fan-vs-fan interaction, than on the tennis itself.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

This post echoes my exact sentiments. The people looking to detract from the standing of a certain achievement are almost invariably the people more focused on fan-vs-fan interaction, than on the tennis itself.

Of course. That is obvious. Who doesn't want to be proclaimed "The best in the world?" To achieve it, you must have a champions heart and mentality.

 

[PMChambers]

Its been quite rare in recent times (last 20 years) but last year we had two YE No.1.
Nadal won the ATP
Djokovic won the ITF

So who's the No.1? The prestigious ITF who weigh GS & H2H higher or ATP weekly ranking system, who consider ATP500?

TBH I have not reviewed 2013, and don't really care. I'm player agnostic, except Borg but he's beyond tennis.

 

[Russeljones]

Its been quite rare in recent times (last 20 years) but last year we had two YE No.1.
Nadal won the ATP
Djokovic won the ITF

So who's the No.1? The prestigious ITF who weigh GS & H2H higher or ATP weekly ranking system, who consider ATP500?

TBH I have not reviewed 2013, and don't really care. I'm player agnostic, except Borg but he's beyond tennis.

Both had a good case for it but ATP should weigh more, imo.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Both had a good case for it but ATP should weigh more, imo.

No case, 2 Slams + 5 Masters is better than 1 Slam, 3 Masters + WTF

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I value YE 1 because it is a points race after all.

However slams are more important overall in legacy (also obviously there is a strong (but not perfect) correlation between slams and rankings especially amongst the reliably consistent top guys who we love to compare.)

 

[The_Order]

Thanks for confirming what I thought was true. It is much harder to get that number one year ending ranking than it is to win a slam. It is an indication of greatness, since so few have stood at the absolute pinnacle of this sport. It shows you are the best in the world at what you do.

Not sure I follow this logic.

You will find it VERY hard to get YE#1 without winning a slam. Not sure if it's ever happened in ATP?

So the guys who get YE#1 usually do from winning a slam. It works hand in hand.

All I know is, if I was a pro on the tour, I'd definitely take 1 slam in my entire career ahead of any YE#1 ranking without ever winning a slam.

Take this year for example. Had Federer finished #1 how can we say that he is currently the best player in the world when he wasn't capable of winning any of the most important tournaments this sport has to offer?

Rankings can also be rewarded through injuries as well. This happened in 2009 when Nadal wasn't able to defend his Wimbledon title and Federer got the #1 ranking back mainly because of that.

So, YE#1 is an important achievement, but not as important as winning a major imo.

 

[Russeljones]

No case, 2 Slams + 5 Masters is better than 1 Slam, 3 Masters + WTF

3 Slam finals is nothing to sniff at. Novak was incredibly consistent.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Not sure I follow this logic.

You will find it VERY hard to get YE#1 without winning a slam. Not sure if it's ever happened in ATP?

So the guys who get YE#1 usually do from winning a slam. It works hand in hand.

All I know is, if I was a pro on the tour, I'd definitely take 1 slam in my entire career ahead of any YE#1 ranking without ever winning a slam.

Take this year for example. Had Federer finished #1 how can we say that he is currently the best player in the world when he wasn't capable of winning any of the most important tournaments this sport has to offer?

Rankings can also be rewarded through injuries as well. This happened in 2009 when Nadal wasn't able to defend his Wimbledon title and Federer got the #1 ranking back mainly because of that.

So, YE#1 is an important achievement, but not as important as winning a major imo.

When did I say that it is more important than winning a slam? I have basically pointed out that it is much harder to get to number one than to win a slam, because of the incredible consistency you have to bring throughout the season. You basically need to outperform every single player on the planet over the whole season, and yes that will include winning slams where you can.

What I personally don't like is when the number one ranking is not given the respect it deserves. I would love to look back on my career and say that I was the best in the world, even if it was for a moment...I still hit the pinnacle. Now, if you don't follow that or don't agree, that is your call. But for me, having that number one ranking is very very important.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

3 Slam finals is nothing to sniff at. Novak was incredibly consistent.

Yes he was. But here is a question.

Whose 2013 trophy cabinet would you prefer, Nadal's or Djokovic's?

I'll take Nadal's two slams, five masters and year end number trophy personally.

 

[Russeljones]

Yes he was. But here is a question.

Whose 2013 trophy cabinet would you prefer, Nadal's or Djokovic's?

I'll take Nadal's two slams, five masters and year end number trophy personally.

So would Novak. Still, the difference isn't as big as some have implied. The WTF and the weeks added as #1 are underrated.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So would Novak. Still, the difference isn't as big as some have implied. The WTF and the weeks added as #1 are underrated.

I can understand the difference isn't big, and the WTF and weeks at number one are very important. However, Nadal does still edge 2013. If Djokovic had got past Murray at Wimbledon, I would have given it to Novak, and I think so would the rankings, but that was just destined to be Murray's time...resulting in Nadal wrestling away the number one ranking.

 

[The_Order]

When did I say that it is more important than winning a slam? I have basically pointed out that it is much harder to get to number one than to win a slam, because of the incredible consistency you have to bring throughout the season. You basically need to outperform every single player on the planet over the whole season, and yes that will include winning slams where you can.

What I personally don't like is when the number one ranking is not given the respect it deserves. I would love to look back on my career and say that I was the best in the world, even if it was for a moment...I still hit the pinnacle. Now, if you don't follow that or don't agree, that is your call. But for me, having that number one ranking is very very important.

Yeah, for me, the number of majors always has and always will be the pinnacle of achievements in one's resume.

As for YE #1, it is a very important metric no doubt. To never reach it after winning multiple slams would certainly be a huge hole in the resume.

No one's going to get near breaking Federer's weeks at #1, one would think...

Interesting fact: Nadal + Federer + Djokovic have held the #1 ranking for a total of 562 weeks, or roughly 10.8 years. Mind boggling. Can it change next year, or will it continue?